W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG?

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:54:25 +0200
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DA02FBA0224DCA0E7EEAA7AA@[192.168.1.119]>



--On 11. august 2007 17:35 +0100 Alexey Melnikov 
<alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:

>
> Hi folks,
> Answers to this question during the BOF were not conclusive, so I would
> like to poll mailing list members on whether revision of RFC 2965 (HTTP
> State Management Mechanism) should be in scope for the proposed WG.
>
> Question: Should RFC 2965 revision be in scope for the WG?
>
> Please chose one of the following answers:
>
> 1). No
> 2). Yes
> 3). Maybe (this includes "yes, but when the WG completes the currently
> proposed milestones" and "yes, but this should be done in another WG")
> 4). I have another opinion, which is ....
>

My response:

Yes - updating of 2965 to document how the mechanism works, and possibly 
describing issues due to non-conformant uses and inherent limitations in 
the mechanism, SHOULD be in scope for the WG.

No - creating a new cookie mechanism to supplant the one specified in 2965 
SHOULD NOT be in scope for the WG.

That doesn't fit any of alternatives 1-3, so I'm a 4....
Received on Sunday, 12 August 2007 17:56:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:15 GMT